Wright v Burg [2018] NSWSC 595

Wright v Burg [2018] NSWSC 595

The will made no provision for Carmen or Carl, although both were natural objects of the deceased's testamentary bounty and the evidence, including Andrew's own evidence about the intended treatment of the Weston property, showed that the deceased contemplated some provision for them. Carl was in greater need because he lacked secure accommodation, had limited prospects and health needs; Carmen was more secure through her husband and home but had poor health and limited employment prospects. Andrew also had a legitimate competing claim and would be affected by any order, but he had received substantial lifetime and post-death benefits from the deceased's property arrangements and had not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw) S 59 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Family provision orders made in favour of both plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adequate Provision for Adult Children' 'testamentary Intentions' 'small Estate' 'full and Frank Financial Disclosure' 'competing Beneficiary Claims']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'adequate Provision for Adult Children' 'testamentary Intentions' 'small Estate' 'full and Frank Financial Disclosure' 'competing Beneficiary Claims']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw) S 59 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the deceased's will made adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life of the first and second plaintiffs." "What provision, if any, should be made for the first and second plaintiffs out of the deceased's estate." "How to balance the needs of the plaintiffs against the defendant's competing claim and asserted reliance on arrangements and promises concerning family properties." 'What significance should be given to incomplete disclosure by the defendant about proceeds of sale and financial dealings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The will made no provision for Carmen or Carl, although both were natural objects of the deceased's testamentary bounty and the evidence, including Andrew's own evidence about the intended treatment of the Weston property, showed that the deceased contemplated some provision for them. Carl was in greater need because he lacked secure accommodation, had limited prospects and health needs; Carmen was more secure through her husband and home but had poor health and limited employment prospects. Andrew also had a legitimate competing claim and would be affected by any order, but he had received substantial lifetime and post-death benefits from the deceased's property arrangements and had not...

Court Disposition

Family provision orders made in favour of both plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59, the first plaintiff receive a lump sum of $50,000 out of the estate of the deceased.' 'Pursuant to Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59, the second plaintiff receive a lump sum of $100,000 out of the estate of the deceased.' "Unless any party makes an application for a...